Please note: we have been online over ten years, and we want The Trek BBS to continue as a free site. But if you block our ads we are at risk.Please consider unblocking ads for this site - every ad you view counts and helps us pay for the bandwidth that you are using. Thank you for your understanding.

Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.

Re: Section 31 is a positive for the Federation (spoilers from TV & bo

I'm kind of at a loss as do how Section 31 won the war, it was the cure that they were unwilling to give that in the end won the war. And there was no accountability for Section 31's attempted use of genocide to end the war, If anything in creating Section 31 it gave the writers an out in allowing genocide to bve used and not have it blamed on the Federation.

__________________
The greatest science fiction series of all time is
Doctor Who! And I'll take you all on, one-by-one
or all in a bunch to back it up!"
--- Harlan Ellison, from his introduction
to the PINNACLE series of Doctor Who books

Because writers didn't think of it or thought it would be "kewler" to have an above-the-law agency running amuck within the Federation.

yup, it's the second one. It's a "rule of drama" outside-universe explanation, not a logical one. The writers wanted to create new plotlines with this organization, THAT's the real reason they didn't just have Starfleet Intelligence do it.

Then they could have their cake and eat it too-show something related to the Federation that was dark and amoral, but NOT take the risk of having it actually be anything officially part of them.

Re: Section 31 is a positive for the Federation (spoilers from TV & bo

randomfan86 wrote:

R. Star wrote:

Sorry, that's a copout. Either you have the high ideals and accept the consequences of them or you don't and you're willing to get your hands dirty. Creating Section 31 to do your dirty work like genocide and executing elected officials while claiming morality and high ideals is hypocritical.

In the Trekverse, both the Obsedion Order and the Tal Shiar were shown to be de facto rogue organizations without accountability as well. The CIA for a period of time in the last century had a lot of rogue activities as well. The CIA was never held to account for those activities. Within the CIA itself, there is a culture of nonaccountability (its the opposite...one of the guys who destroyed the torture tapes is getting promoted and a whistleblower on torture is going to jail). The Federation just doesn't bother with the pretense, so in a way, they are less hypocritical. Don't hate on them.

The Obsidian Order and the Tal Shiar were official arms of the Cardassian and Romulan states. They were openly expected to investigate and conduct overt operations. Your comparison is flawed.

That said, Section 31 is an interesting idea, however it undermines the Roddenberry vision. People can say it's unrealistic, however that misses the point since no artistic work has to be wholly realistic.

Re: Section 31 is a positive for the Federation (spoilers from TV & bo

No, secretly murdering and assassinating people is not acceptable in the name of practical gain for your side, period. Maybe there are some exceptions for extreme scenarios like ITPM where billions of lives are in the balance. But for the cited example of Koval, the goal was not saving lives, the goal was giving the Federation political control over Romulus after the war. It's akin to the way the US aided military coups against democracies in order to serve their oil interests. And the virus would be like winning a war by nuking the entire country.

You must consider Henry Kissinger your personal hero, and consider Cerberus the heroes of Mass Effect.

Re: Section 31 is a positive for the Federation (spoilers from TV & bo

JirinPanthosa wrote:

No, secretly murdering and assassinating people is not acceptable in the name of practical gain for your side, period. Maybe there are some exceptions for extreme scenarios like ITPM where billions of lives are in the balance. But for the cited example of Koval, the goal was not saving lives, the goal was giving the Federation political control over Romulus after the war. It's akin to the way the US aided military coups against democracies in order to serve their oil interests. And the virus would be like winning a war by nuking the entire country.

You must consider Henry Kissinger your personal hero, and consider Cerberus the heroes of Mass Effect.

Well that's quite the long-game you accuse Section 31 of playing. So they knew Koval would eventually bring in the Romulans into the war...they knew they would win the war...and then the real purpose was political control? Was this in the books? I mean I certainty could see where that would be a benefit but I think their interests were more short-term.

I concur with Cerebus, and agree Kisinger was a positive force. If its either nuking the entirety of the other country or being enslaved by the despotic regime of the that other country...at least with the US, I can guarantee you its the former every time.

Re: Section 31 is a positive for the Federation (spoilers from TV & bo

randomfan86 wrote:

If its either nuking the entirety of the other country or being enslaved by the despotic regime of the that other country...at least with the US, I can guarantee you its the former every time.

The USA already proved it needs FAR less incentive than all but guaranteed enslavement by another country in order to resort to nuking said country.
A smaller casualty count for its army is more than sufficient.

Re: Section 31 is a positive for the Federation (spoilers from TV & bo

Edit_XYZ wrote:

randomfan86 wrote:

If its either nuking the entirety of the other country or being enslaved by the despotic regime of the that other country...at least with the US, I can guarantee you its the former every time.

The USA already proved it needs FAR less incentive than all but guaranteed enslavement by another country in order to resort to nuking said country.
A smaller casualty count for its army is more than sufficient.

No disagreement, but lets be fair: The countries with the so-called "No First Use Policy"....that is pure pretense. If put in the same situation as the United States was in, they would use it in a heartbeat. In the end, it was the right decision by any calculus you want to use in that it saved both Japanese and American lives and brought forth the inevitable conclusion of American victory.

Re: Section 31 is a positive for the Federation (spoilers from TV & bo

Hartzilla2007 wrote:

Wait he's using the books to defend Section 31, the same books that show how they are considerably incompetent and as such probably a major threat to the federation due to their bungling almost screwing them over?

I only used one example in favor and I used one example in the books against...if you want to scratch both of them and just go with the other ones go ahead.

But, it'd be more productive to the discussion if you could throw out a couple examples no?

Re: Section 31 is a positive for the Federation (spoilers from TV & bo

indolover wrote:

randomfan86 wrote:

R. Star wrote:

Sorry, that's a copout. Either you have the high ideals and accept the consequences of them or you don't and you're willing to get your hands dirty. Creating Section 31 to do your dirty work like genocide and executing elected officials while claiming morality and high ideals is hypocritical.

In the Trekverse, both the Obsedion Order and the Tal Shiar were shown to be de facto rogue organizations without accountability as well. The CIA for a period of time in the last century had a lot of rogue activities as well. The CIA was never held to account for those activities. Within the CIA itself, there is a culture of nonaccountability (its the opposite...one of the guys who destroyed the torture tapes is getting promoted and a whistleblower on torture is going to jail). The Federation just doesn't bother with the pretense, so in a way, they are less hypocritical. Don't hate on them.

The Obsidian Order and the Tal Shiar were official arms of the Cardassian and Romulan states. They were openly expected to investigate and conduct overt operations. Your comparison is flawed.

That said, Section 31 is an interesting idea, however it undermines the Roddenberry vision. People can say it's unrealistic, however that misses the point since no artistic work has to be wholly realistic.

It might only be explicitly stated with section 31, but all three orgs in practice operate as rogue orgs without accountability. The only difference was two of them were openly known to the public while section 31 wasn't. But all of them were officially sanctioned.

Re: Section 31 is a positive for the Federation (spoilers from TV & bo

sonak wrote:

C.E. Evans wrote:

T'Girl wrote:

Then why didn't Starfleet Intelligence do it first?

Because writers didn't think of it or thought it would be "kewler" to have an above-the-law agency running amuck within the Federation.

yup, it's the second one. It's a "rule of drama" outside-universe explanation, not a logical one. The writers wanted to create new plotlines with this organization, THAT's the real reason they didn't just have Starfleet Intelligence do it.

Then they could have their cake and eat it too-show something related to the Federation that was dark and amoral, but NOT take the risk of having it actually be anything officially part of them.

I don't know...I see them as being officially part of the Federation in the sense that they are sanctioned in the charter. You might be right about the reasoning, but if that's the case...that is indeed kind of lame.

Re: Section 31 is a positive for the Federation (spoilers from TV & bo

DWF wrote:

I'm kind of at a loss as do how Section 31 won the war, it was the cure that they were unwilling to give that in the end won the war. And there was no accountability for Section 31's attempted use of genocide to end the war, If anything in creating Section 31 it gave the writers an out in allowing genocide to bve used and not have it blamed on the Federation.

Lets be fair, who started the war? Who was trying to enslave the other side? Who openly talked about destroying Earth? Don't play the game if you don't want to get hurt.

If they were to be held to account, they would be given medals and showered with praise.

Oto curing the female changeling was what helped win them the war. If there was no virus, that wouldn't have happened and a bloody last battle might have ensued costing millions of lives. Furthermore, it was the ultimate insurance policy in case things went downhill or remained a stalemate.

Re: Section 31 is a positive for the Federation (spoilers from TV & bo

randomfan86 wrote:

Edit_XYZ wrote:

randomfan86 wrote:

If its either nuking the entirety of the other country or being enslaved by the despotic regime of the that other country...at least with the US, I can guarantee you its the former every time.

The USA already proved it needs FAR less incentive than all but guaranteed enslavement by another country in order to resort to nuking said country.
A smaller casualty count for its army is more than sufficient.

No disagreement, but lets be fair: The countries with the so-called "No First Use Policy"....that is pure pretense. If put in the same situation as the United States was in, they would use it in a heartbeat. In the end, it was the right decision by any calculus you want to use in that it saved both Japanese and American lives and brought forth the inevitable conclusion of American victory.

First - USA used the atomic bombs because it wanted to prevent further russian advances and to reduce the casualty number of its own soldiers (the relevant decision makers of the time admitted as much).
It didn't care in the least about reducing the number of japanese casualties or about any moral calculus along those lines - indeed, the japanese cities were chosen due to their geography (in order to focus the explosion, ensuring greater destruction/number of dead civilians) and the fact that many buildings were made of wood (in order to burn, again ensuring greater destruction/number of dead civilians).

Second - your ~'other countries would do the same' - is juvenile excusism, based on no evidence at all. Merely the unfounded rhetorical statement that ~'the other guys are equally bad/worse'.